The government is once again on the receiving end of a no-holds-barred speech by a judge. The outgoing president of the family division has criticised ministers for finding parliamentary time to debating how to address a bankruptcy judge but not to end the 'long-standing abuse' of alleged perpetrators of domestic violence cross-examining alleged victims.

Sir James Munby, who retires on Friday, apologised to the Family Justice Young People's Board conference in Manchester today that despite years of effort, nothing has been achieved to accommodate the needs of children who want to come to court, give evidence or meet the judge.

Munby said matters were even worse now than when he spoke at last year's conference. 'The minister has, just a few days ago, written to me to announce the government's decision that the proposals which I and others have been pressing for cannot be implemented. This is deeply depressing news. I can only apologise again for my failure to achieve for you what is, as I believe, plainly the right thing to do,' he said.

Munby said he was pleased when the government included appropriate clauses in the Prisons and Courts Bill to end the cross-examination of an alleged victim by an alleged perpetrator - a practice that continues in Crown courts. However, the bill was scrapped because of last year's general election and the relevant clauses do not appear in the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill.

'No doubt clause 2 of this bill deals with a matter of importance to some, but whether a person hearing bankruptcy cases should be called a registrar or a judge is surely of much less pressing concern and infinitely less priority than putting an end to this long-standing abuse in the family courts,' Munby said. He asked why parliamentary time does not permit the government to bring forward the necessary bill 'when there is apparently time for parliament to debate the appropriate judicial title for a bankruptcy judge?'

He continued: 'And what, in all this time, of progress in relation to how the family justice system should meet the aspirations and accommodate the needs of children who want to come to court? Nothing, absolutely nothing, despite continuing and unrelenting pressure from both me and the Family Procedure Rules Committee.'

Earlier this month Munby received a ministerial letter containing 'a long description of how children can participate in proceedings through others, and of how their wishes and feelings can be brought to the attention of the court, but this, with all respect to the minister, is largely beside the point'. The committee drafted rules and a practice direction in relation to children. However, Munby was told that the proposals could not be implemented 'given their assessed operational impacts'.

'You may be wondering what is meant by "assessed operational impacts",' Munby said. 'In plain English, it means it would all cost too much. The minister acknowledged that this decision would be "disappointing". I would use a rather blunter word.'

8 Readers' comments

Have your say

Only registered users can comment on this article.

Interesting, at least to a layman.
I divorced my wife in 1980 because of her puzzlingly starting to behave unreasonably towards our two primary age children, girls. (It turned out she was going into a 'personality' - not 'mental' - disorder.) For ease, I accepted her accusation of infidelity, as she could name no-one. The social worker's report had nothing negative to say about me, but puzzled at how calmly I was taking the matter. I was puzzled that doing so was not obviously the way to behave, for a father seeking custody of young children, or anybody.
The judge retired to chambers and took the girls with him, sitting the younger one on his knee (they thought he was lovely). He came back, saying they were lovely, intelligent children, who knew what they wanted and why, and had not been influenced by me. He awarded me custody (to the amazement of my wife and her 5 sisters, older, and maybe others).
The rest of the settlement doesn't matter. This article and comments seem to suggest that that natural, human behaviour was unusual for a judge. Why?

They have proven that they can be tasked with a job and see it through irrespective how unpopular it makes/made them.

Whilst you may not agree with their various reforms, they have both been undeniably successful in achieving their outcomes (widening access to justice and codifying rules, and reducing uncertainty of costs by fixing them on a tariff basis).

If they were tasked with righting the wrongs with the current justice system, top to bottom I have no doubt that they would make a damn good go of it.

They would not hesitate to state publicly where desired outcomes could not be achieved due to lack of ministerial willingness to spend the necessary money.

As for having respect of the Ministers, they would either demand it by dint of their reputation or wouldn't give a toss if they received it and would plow on anyway!

I think it is time to move to a system of life-time appointments for the senior judiciary and the role of Lord Chancellor (who should be appointed from the Judiciary and not be a Politician); akin to the American system.

Whilst political appointments and often highly contentious, knowing that they hold those senior posts for life permits them an amount of security of conviction that allows for decisions to be made that may upset the government of the day.

TOO many vulnerable persons suffering with disabilities and mental health issues and children are threatened by arrogant, abusive and aggressive lawyers and judges. If you want your Titles then look away and leave the profession which was meant to give justice and let people be heard in a court of law. MUNDI is accurate in his opinion. Its time society changed and realised that Titles are useless unless the person holding it can be respected.

Until we have a legal heavyweight Lord Chancellor ( ie of Supreme Court or Court of Appeal quality ) who sits at the cabinet table and has the respect of the Prime Minister in all matters legal the Government will continue to fail to understand the legal system ( civil, domestic and criminal) and what's good for it. As a lawyer I would say that wouldn't I? Tony Blair and Cherrie Booth ( both lawyers) greatly undermined the authority of office of the Lord Chancellor during their period in control ( shame, as any Lord Chancellor would have been able to advise Tony that starting a war against Iraq without a United Nations Resolution would be illegal). Now our senior judges are left to give press statements and sound bites when it is safe to do so at the end of their careers thus slightly undermining their independence and neutrality in all things political.

The Law Society of England and Wales

The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. From negotiating with and lobbying the profession’s regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we’re here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales.